Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship

from the hackers-find-a-way dept

It's been pointed out over and over again that censoring the internet is no way to deal with things like copyright infringement -- and that people will always figure out ways to route around such censorship. That's why it's interesting to hear that some folks at the famed Chaos Communication Congress in Berlin last week outlined some plans to set up their own satellite system for routing around internet censorship around the globe. And... a key reason given for why this is needed? SOPA, of course:

He cited the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa) in the United States as an example of the kind of threat facing online freedom. If passed, the act would allow for some sites to be blocked on copyright grounds.

They're obviously a long way from this, but the ability of amateurs to build and launch their own satellites into space has been growing and that's only going to accelerate. On top of that, with efforts like SOPA and other censorship efforts around the globe, it's giving more urgency to folks who believe in freedom of speech and civil liberties to figure out ways to decentralize and move away from systems that can be controlled by governments.

We've noted in the past couple of years that a few big events have started to call attention to the parts of the network that are centarlized and vulnerable to censorship -- and that's resulted in numerous efforts to decentralize those elements and make them censorship-proof. These projects won't all work (and some will certainly fail miserably), but as more and more people realize that these censor-proof systems are needed, it means that they will get created.

Reader Comments

the thing that governments and major corporations cant seem to get their heads round is that there are people that dont work for them, that are far more clever than those that do work for them but do it for the LOLS, not for the big bucks. the main reason is these people believe in freedom, free speech, civil rights etc etc, not in totalitarian governments, fascism, communism, corporatism or any other bullshit that just ties you down in every way, shape and form!

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

They went into assisted living homes after they finally killed off so many brain cells that they could no longer support themselves. You really think you can live forever out of the street doing drugs?

Re: Re:

Talkin' bout their generation? Well they didn't die before they got old and decided that the establishment they were railing against was actually a good way to make money once you'd become embedded in it if that's what you're asking...

Re: Re:

Humph. There are still some of us out there, fighting the good fight. We're a bit busy, what with running the business and all that, but our memory is long and our vengeance is terrible. Now get off my lawn!

"Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship"

Why are satellites and satellite space 'owned' by corporations to begin with? If the govt puts up many of these satellites and/or if these satellites occupy (what should be) public space, shouldn't we all have some access to them without going through a government established private/corporate gatekeeper? Are these satellites being used efficiently for the public interest or for corporate interests and what policy changes can we make to optimize their public utility and not just their corporate utility?

Re:

You can bypass all of the gate keepers with the right equipment. Just like how people receive international television with the use of home satellite dishes. In some places, even the descrambler box is legal.

Re:

The satellites marked as privately owned were paid for by private entities, and the same private entities paid for their share of the lift that put them in space. That is why we do not all have privileges to private satellites.

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

I disagree. If a satellite is broadcasting a signal, and I can retrieve and decode that signal from the privacy of my own home, then I should be able to do so. If they don't want me to decode and use the signal, stop broadcasting it at me.

I know...It's not like stealing power or water, they can't just "turn it off", but who's problem is that?

Re: Re: Re:

I agree with you. They are broadcasting over (what should be) public airwaves and I (should) have just as much a right to transceive information using those public airwaves as anyone else. and those satellites are located on (what should be) public property and so they should belong to the public. If you abandon your bike on the sidewalk (public property) for long enough, the city or anyone can take it and it becomes theirs. Public property is no one's private storage facility. Just because you pay for something doesn't mean you can leave it wherever you want and deny others the use of its space to put their own satellites in and use them. No, if it's on (what should be) public space, it should be for the public to use, because it's denying others the use of that space.

Re: Re: Re:

Not that I agree with stealing satellite TV (I pay DirecTV more than I should every month), but just ordering equipment can get you busted and sued whether you ever used it or not. Just look at all the DirecTV cases.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re:

> if these satellites occupy (what should be) public space,
> shouldn't we all have some access to them without going
> through a government established private/corporate
> gatekeeper?

You don't have a right to access someone else's private property merely because that property is in a 'public space'.

The oceans are as much 'public space' as near-earth orbit but that doesn't mean you can't just board and use any ship or boat on the high seas that you like because it's in a 'public space'. Likewise the owner of a multi-million-dollar satellite doesn't suddenly lose their private property rights just because they launch it into orbit.

outlaw this too

Clearly, we are swiftly approaching a situation in which internet research and network research of any kind will have to be initiated and controlled by the the copyright industry or its proxy, the government. That is the only sure way to secure the future for the RIAA and MIAA, which is the only thing that should matter to any true, patriotic American.

Re: outlaw this too

Clearly, we are swiftly approaching a situation in which internet research and network research of any kind will have to be initiated and controlled by the the copyright industry or its proxy, the government.

Frankly, I am still waiting for the ATMOS-like device attached to our computers filtering out the copyright material or the EarPods that filter out copyright material from our brains. What could possibly go wrong with either of these devices?

Re: Crowdsourcing

Perhaps. ICANN is certainly corrupt to the bone -- as we can clearly see by the .xxx debacle, in which it blessed an extortion scheme because it was paid off by the registrar involved. (Have you used DNS RPZ to make .xxx vanish from your network's view of the Internet? If not, why not?)

However, replacing it begs the question: does it need to be replaced? I think serious debate on that point should occur before we put ourselves in situation where we could just "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

Re: Re: Crowdsourcing

Actually I was kind of joking with the idea but you do got a point. I think we don't need a boss. ICANN should be decentralized just like the internetz. If one country decides to trample with the system then it can be shut down from the rest without any damage. When Egypt got cut down from the net no1 actually felt it (except for the Egyptians themselves). That's what we need. If a determined country decides to go fascist like the US just get it out of the process.

Dunno, I'm thinking like some sort of server rack. If you turn off any of the clusters or they get some sort of corruption the rest can isolate it and ignore the damage maintaining the integrity. Granted you have less hardware power but it prevents the whole thing from crashing.

Re: Re: Crowdsourcing

At the moment you need something like ICANN to assign blocks to persons or other entities. Otherwise you'd have address conflicts pretty fast (and I'm not talking about domain names here, though those would certainly clash too). Those multiple usages could be just accidential with no malice involved, but wreak havoc nevertheless. Hence, until you have a true P2P system, which figures its addresses out by itself (which also should be pretty resilient against malicious attacks, e.g. hijacking addresses "assigned" to someone else, pre-computation of addresses assigned to somebody, etc.) and still maintain a way to identify a given entity with some certainty (like: am I really visiting web shop x?), you're stuck with the current system; note that by "identify" I don't necessarily mean "with postal address, telephone number, name, etc." a nick name or other handle would be sufficient (especially if those handles would be verifiable through a web of trust).

So, in the short term I don't see something like ICANN go away and I find it hard to believe, that the powers that be would allow an entity organized like CACert or something similar to gain control over the root zone and address assignment while a replacement system, which would shut them out entirely, is developed. But, as the pressure is increasing, there will be technical solutions, some pieces are already in place, others need to be developed. Still nothing insurmountable AFAICS.

Re: Crowdsourcing

how about a program that shares a small percentage of your wireless to a network or other like minded wireless modems within range - slowly spreading out around your city/country (would that be called a darknet??) - actually whatever i think of has normally been done years ago.

I don't think replacing the critical network infrastructure will help much, that just leads to the "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" problem. A better method would be to restructure the network so as to allow for competing services. that way, if one operator no longer meets your needs, you can move to another.
The real trick is going to be arranging for competition in things like DNS and IP number assignments, without also fragmenting the internet.

You know, my first impulse was to laugh at the very idea. But then I thought of that episode of Top Gear in which they acquired a pretty impressive spacelift capability with the aid of a small and totally unremarkable preciion engineering firm. Yes, it did admittedly end up exploding, but then I assume you're average group of hackers isn't going to be using a payload designed by Richard Hammond.

It's sort of a bad idea. Putting a satellite in orbit is expensive and failure prone, and, in the end, the satellite can just be knocked down by a well aimed shot (which probably costs a fraction of what the satellite did) by any government that decides that the satellite is a "rogue satellite".

Unless they fire hundreds of satellites into space, their "network" will never have enough redundancy to withstand the kinds of attacks that it was designed to defeat in the first place. And who's going to finance all that?

They would be better off spending their time developing some sort of wide area, distributed, wireless network that is easy and cheap to set up. That could probably work. And some the infrastructure is already in place (pretty much anyone I know has a wireless router, an I can "detect" dozens of them in my neighbourhood).

Re:

"the satellite can just be knocked down by a well aimed shot (which probably costs a fraction of what the satellite did) by any government that decides that the satellite is a "rogue satellite"."

I think it's a little harder to knock down a satellite than that. Depending on the distance from the earth and what type of orbit it's in such as geosynchronous, they could be moving upwards of 15,000 MPH or even faster. It can be done, but it's super expensive and extremely difficult to do undetected.... besides... you would not want to be the first government to throw that stone....

Re:

The one point you miss there though is you say that if they put a satellite into space some government will just shoot it down. I really doubt that would happen for one simple reason. If the hackers get their satellites into orbit that would mean they have the knowledge needed to take out other satellites. What government would risk that? You shoot down one hacker satellite only to have them crash their other satellite into your billion dollar spy satellite?

It is never pretty when a government thinks they can win a pissing contest with the general population. The Government only has the power given to it by the people. Once it abuses that power the people will rise up and take it back. In this case you can look forward to a lot of disruptions to satellite services before all this is done.

Re:

There is only the small problem that, due to orbital mechanics, they are not really "taken down". The fragments of whatever was destroyed stay in orbit, and still have a very high speed (having a very high speed is a prerequisite for being in orbit, in fact). And since it has been destroyed, it does not have any active control, making the fragments a hazard to other satellites and space stations.

Due to the risk of creating a Kessler cascade, any space-faring nation would only destroy a satellite as a last option, unless the target's orbit is low enough that most fragments would reenter in a few weeks.

LMAO @ you guys. It's hilarious how much Mike NEEDS piracy to prevail. Like governments are going to allow satellites to be launched and operated that are dedicated to violating people's rights. Give me a break. And really, the "key reason given" is SOPA, even though these guys aren't in the U.S.? Exaggerate much? The article says: "He cited the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa) in the United States as an example of the kind of threat facing online freedom." "An example" gets turned into the "key reason." What a joke.

And Mike, if you're so worried about people's rights, then where is your concerned for all of the people whose rights are violated everyday on the internet? Funny how you don't care about those people, and in fact, you support the lawbreakers. Guess some rights are worth more than others, right? What a piece of work you are.

Re:

Really? Piracy is what you got out of this article? Are you really that insane? Has it never occurred to you that censorship, no matter what justification is given, is bad and people don't like to be censored?

Re: Re:

Really? Piracy is what you got out of this article? Are you really that insane? Has it never occurred to you that censorship, no matter what justification is given, is bad and people don't like to be censored?

Not one word about how Mike turned "an example" into the "key reason"? Tell me, Zachary, can you admit that Mike exaggerated that and that it's just another example of Mike's bias when it comes to all things SOPA? Please, address this point. I'm curious what your take is.

As far as all the whining about "censorship" goes, tell me this: How exactly is SOPA censorship? I posted a couple days ago about how there's a broad and a narrow defintion of censorship. Not sure if you saw it.

Basically, my argument is that SOPA is not about censorship in the narrow sense, which is how I think most people use the term. Censorship under this view is when the government regulates the subject matter or the viewpoint being expressed. For example, government regulation of what people say about same-sex marriage would be censorship--the bad kind of censorship that China has.

Under the broad definition, any government regulation of speech is considered to be censorship. An example of this would be a noise ordinance. I can stand in my front lawn, standing on a soapbox, talking about how great same-sex marriage is all day long. But what I can't do is crank up my amplifier so that I'm outputting 160 decibels. While the noise ordinance is censorship in the broad sense, I don't think most people would agree that that's the bad kind of censorship--the Chinese kind of censorship--because the government is not regulating WHAT I say. They're only regulating the manner in which I can say it.

Mike, of course, is using the broad definition of censorship because it carries with it negative connotations (China!!!!), but really, this isn't the bad kind of censorship. SOPA is more like a noise ordinance than it is like China-style censorship.

So tell me this: What kind of censorship are you talking about with SOPA? Is it the bad, Chinese kind, or is it the other kind, like a time, place, or manner restriction that already constrain most of what we can do?

I'm just not seeing how this is the bad kind of censorship. Comparing us to China and pretending like this is the end of the world is just a rhetorical device that pro-piracy apologists like Mike use. It works on the masses, I suppose, but apparently I'm immune (thank God!).

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yet again, you fail to consider that ANY censorship is bad. Sadly, we have censorship each day:they're called laws. Every single law censors speech, via action or otherwise.

So the noise ordinance that prevents me from blasting my pro-same-sex-marriage diatribe is bad? I bet my next door neighbor would disagree. You're right that censorship is all around us. I respectfully disagree that it's all bad. In fact, I don't see how society could properly function without censorship.

I suppose you think it's bad that you can't break into your neighbor's house so you can exercise your free speech rights there, right? I mean, those silly trespassing laws are CENSORSHIP, and all censorship is bad, right? Sigh.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So the noise ordinance that prevents me from blasting my pro-same-sex-marriage diatribe is bad?

This appears to be a somewhat homophobic or heterophobic stance (dependant on whether you're against pro-same-sex-marriage or whther the diatribe is against all that is against pro-same-sex-marriages), just as well we're not censored or you'd never be able to make such a statement.
Whether you're shouting it from a soapbox or pumping it through an amp, I would think your neighbor would be pretty pissed off either way, still, it's better than being pissed on - allegedly.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

IMO, yes. But then, I'm a minarchist. Ideally, the government should not legislate those issues that do not directly relate to the operation of a nation's essential functions (such as healthcare, education, water and power supply.)

IP does not affect the essential functions of a nation, therefore any legislative efforts are, indeed, censorship.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Your neighbor is and idiot if he agrees with you, it is easy to soundproof your ears.

There, no need to censor anyone because of noise.

The funny part though is that the "pirate message" as you call it is all over the internet and elsewhere and can be spread freely, your message on the other hand probably would have to have everybody pay for it to spread or get taken down by the owner of that message amiright?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Quote:

I suppose you think it's bad that you can't break into your neighbor's house so you can exercise your free speech rights there, right? I mean, those silly trespassing laws are CENSORSHIP, and all censorship is bad, right? Sigh.

Are you the guy that call child services on your neighbors because they make noise that you don't like?

Are you the guy that for petty reasons study city ordinances to screw your neighbors?

Re: Re: Re:

You want my opinion on censorship and how that relates to your own definition? OK.

Let's take your example of a noise ordnance. Let's say that a city has had a number of people exceed the noise level and are not able to keep up with the infractions. So instead of reviewing the issue, finding out what the real problem is and working a solution that actually addresses the problem, they instead decide to ban all amplified outdoor communication instead. Not only does this effect those that were in violation of the noise ordnance, it also makes other legal activities illegal, such as the ice cream man and protestors. This is how SOPA works. Instead of creating a narrowly targeted law that deal only with copyright infringement, Congress has instead made it possible to shut down entire avenues of communication.

That is bad. That is censorship.

As for your issue with "a key issue" and "an example" considering there were no other examples given in the source article, I don't see any issue calling it a key issue. If there was a better example to give other than general censorship, then why did the source article not use it?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

This is how SOPA works. Instead of creating a narrowly targeted law that deal only with copyright infringement, Congress has instead made it possible to shut down entire avenues of communication.

SOPA targets websites that are dedicated to infringement, and they are taken down only via court order and with all the procedural safeguards provided by the Federal Rules. What else would you target but the websites themselves? You guys keep saying it's not "narrowly targeted" enough, but you don't explain how you would target things more narrowly.

Tell me, Zachary, what the perfect law would be to deal with these rogue sites. What would the definition be? What would the procedures be? I'm seeing a lot of whining but no viable alternatives. I can't help but think that you and the other whiners will complain no matter what the law actually says. The fact is, you don't want anything to be done about piracy. And given that, it's hard to take your criticisms seriously.

As for your issue with "a key issue" and "an example" considering there were no other examples given in the source article, I don't see any issue calling it a key issue. If there was a better example to give other than general censorship, then why did the source article not use it?

That's just silly, but I'm not surprised you're defending Mike. If I say I want to launch satellites to combat censorship, and give as "an example" SOPA, it's not accurate to report that my example is the "key reason." Mike twisted it like he twists everything SOPA-related to suit his needs. Mike couldn't be honest about SOPA if his life depended on it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Tell me, Zachary, what the perfect law would be to deal with these rogue sites.

I don't think there is a perfect law. A perfect law would be one that completely eradicated the problem. Therefore, there are no perfect laws.

However, if you want an example of a better solution, you already have one. It is called the OPEN Act. While it is not perfect, it does a better job at targeting the issue of rogue sites than SOPA does.

If I say I want to launch satellites to combat censorship, and give as "an example" SOPA, it's not accurate to report that my example is the "key reason."

Mike never said it was "the key reason" he said it was "a key reason" It was reason enough to be the sole cited reason in the source article. If that is not enough to consider it a key reason, then I don't know what is.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

However, if you want an example of a better solution, you already have one. It is called the OPEN Act. While it is not perfect, it does a better job at targeting the issue of rogue sites than SOPA does.

But why is the OPEN Act better than SOPA? How does it do a "better job at targeting the issue of rogue sites"?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

It is not better, unless, of course, your end goal is to eliminate any attempt to craft a means by which copyright/trademarks/ etc. can be enforced.

Exactly. I don't actually expect Zachary to explain why the OPEN Act is better at targeting rogue sites than SOPA. But you and I both know why the pirate-apologists like it better--it's simply designed to be less effective at combating piracy.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Censorship should never be easy. That is the point. If you are going to cut off the communication of an entire website's community, you better have a solid case and be able to prove it to a 3rd party authority in a full adversarial hearing.

SOPA does not have that. OPEN does. That is one reason why OPEN is better.

To tell you the truth, I think neither law is actually needed as we have seen time and time again that they are not needed at all. Many companies and artists are able to make money despite the proliferation of piracy. Piracy is a business model problem and so it is the business model that needs to adjust to reality.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I guess if you want another reason, OPEN is actually open to debate for all parties involved. No party is excluded from the editing process. SOPA was written by its supporters with no input from its opponents. That is another reason why it is better.

I guess, all I can really do is point to this article regarding OPEN and its pros and cons.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Doesn't matter what SOPA targets. It matters what SOPA allows. We've seen with the DMCA that it has been repeatedly abused to do things for which the DMCA was never intended or targeted.

You have to either be the most naive human being who has ever lived or you're being purposely obtuse for effect to not recognize that SOPA will be abused the same way, and since the powers it confers to both private parties and the government make the DMCA look like a kid's toy, the resultant harm to innocent/legal parties from its abuse will be quite severe.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

> I'm seeing a lot of whining but no viable alternatives.

The fact that you can't see any alternatives to massive government overreach and constitutional violation in order to solve a problem doesn't make massive government overreach and constitutional violation acceptable.

And it's not up to the people to come up with a better way to police the net for the entertainment industry or else have draconian censorship laws applied to them.

Re: Re: Re:

Your idiocy has been pointed out to you time and time, again, but you refuse to listen to what anyone else has to say. That rather leaves us to the point of just ignoring you and your trollish fantasies.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

So your fear is that federal judges will allow SOPA to be used to bring China-like censorship to the U.S., where websites get taken down not because they're used to violate people's rights but because of the messages and ideas being voiced on those sites?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I write a letter to paypal and ISPs telling them a site is dedicated to infringement. They have 5 days to block that site. To cover their ass they just go ahead and block it, and i don't blame them. Now a site is cut off from it's revenue and customers until they can get a federal judge to weigh in on the subject, which according to recent history can take over a year.

So no I am concerned that the way this bill is set up, with the private right to action, it would allow companies to stifle competitors without a judge looking at anything. Certainly Viacom isn't above using content it uploaded to youtube itself as proof that youtube infringes what would stop them from doing the same thing to other sites under sopa, and getting their site blocked and revenue cut off before any judge looks at anything?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I write a letter to paypal and ISPs telling them a site is dedicated to infringement. They have 5 days to block that site.

Um, you're referring to sections of SOPA that have been cut out. There is no more "private right of action" as you call it. Everything is now done in a federal court, before a federal judge, and following the Federal Rules.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

A "private right of action" means the right to file a lawsuit. I know people are also using it to describe the notice-and-takedown procedure that once existed in SOPA, but that's not the correct usage of the phrase. There is still in fact a private right of action in SOPA, i.e., a private individual may file suit.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So I just noticed that while they removed the section I was most upset about I see they added immunity to anyone who blocks a site without a court order as long as they are acting in good faith or with credible evidence.

So an ISP or paypal ect. receives a letter from the **AA or Disney saying this site is dedicated to infringement they can go ahead and block that site with full immunity for their actions. Not only does this allow ISPs et. al. to block sites of their own accord (which could very well happen since most of them share parent companies with content providers) but it also means that if they receive a letter from a content provider saying this is infringement please block, its in their best interest (and their legal team will tell them this every time) to just go ahead and block the site.

So they didn't really remove the bad section they just reworded it and hid it a bit better. Did you realize that when you told me it was removed? Are you really as sneaky and disingenuous as they say?

It provides immunity for those providers who act in good faith. Of course, those providers who cut off rogue actors based on a good faith belief would already not be liable for those actions. If Google Ads or Visa think I'm using their service for criminal deeds, they can already cut me off. It's right there in their terms of service.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yes but now time warner can start blocking websites if one of the other warner affiliates tells them its dedicated to infringing. As can any other "service provider, payment network provider, Internet advertising service, advertiser, Internet search engine, domain name registry, domain name registrar, entity described in section 101(20)(B), or Internet Protocol Allocation entity, including any director, officers, employees, or agents of any such entity" without worrying about anti-competitive practice laws or any of the other reasons why comcast can't just block ATT affiliates. They just need some evidence and an affidavit from someone at the **AA and they are acting in good faith on credible evidence.

It still leaves that (what I am apparently mislabeling) private right to action by allowing companies to censor what they want based on weak evidence and without judicial oversite. They simply got rid of the section I and many others have a problem with but suck the same powers in elsewhere. Sure this doesn't have the do it in 5 days or else language the original section had but companies wishing to avoid liability will certainly act quickly, not to mention those seeing a sneaky way to disrupt competitors.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I hear ya, but I just don't see the problem. As I said, Time Warner (or whoever) can already cut people off without liability if they have a good faith belief that that person is engaging in illegal activity using their service. In fact, I'd be surprised if this sort of thing wasn't already happening. Do you really think Time Warner (or whoever) should have judicial oversight over every single decision like this they make? That's not reasonable, IMO.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

And I suppose Mike completely made up the story about Dajaz1.com, did he?
Dajaz1.com was blocked for an entire year from the internet without charge and without trial. The evidence that the RIAA gave to law enforcement was faulty. Thus, we have a collusion between the media conglomerates and law enforcement to censor speech. Later, the very same media conglomerates go on to sponsor SOPA. Well, Joe, I don't trust them. They have lost my trust and the trust of thousands of others. So, I will take the position that SOPA will benefit the conglomerates to my and other's detriment.

And no, don't bother saying Dajaz1.com was a pirate site. They were never found guilty of breaking the law, yet were punished anyway.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I don't like it when anyone's rights are violated, and it certainly looks like theirs were. I agree with you about the specific case of dajaz1.com. But that doesn't change the fact that rogue sites exist, they exist for the purpose of violating people's rights, and something should be done about it.

You said that due process was followed. You said that there was probable cause. Turns out there wasn't. So which is it? Do you agree with me about Dajaz1.com or was the DoJ correct to censor it?
What I did here is see something you said today and checked back on your profile what you said before. They're two different things. This is what Mike has done before with some of the supporters of SOPA, the politicians who have said in the past they don't support government regulation of the internet or similar statements, and then gone on to be hypocritical.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Probable cause was demonstrated to a judge who then issued a warrant. That's not where the problem was. The problem was that dajaz1.com wasn't given a chance to challenge the seizure in court promptly afterwards. My opinion is that that violated their rights. This opinion is independent of whether the site was actually dedicated to infringement or subject to forfeiture--which I don't have an opinion on either way.

And, yes, my opinion of the Operation in Our Sites has changed as I learn more about Due Process and the First Amendment. If you think that's me being hypocritical, then I don't know what to tell you. I make mistakes, I learn from them, and I admit when I'm wrong. I only care about getting the law right, and my opinion actually changes as new information becomes known. I can't say that much for Mike et al.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

If you really cared about due process, you would be concerned with the way SOPA handles the blocking of sites. SOPA only allows for an adversarial hearing AFTER the site has already been blocked. This is after damage has been done. After a punishment has already been enacted. This is contrary to the Constitution's definitions of due process rights.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

If you really cared about due process, you would be concerned with the way SOPA handles the blocking of sites. SOPA only allows for an adversarial hearing AFTER the site has already been blocked. This is after damage has been done. After a punishment has already been enacted. This is contrary to the Constitution's definitions of due process rights.

That's not exactly true. SOPA claims would be filed in a federal district court, and the only way the site would be blocked without an adversarial hearing would be if the court issued an ex parte TRO, or if the defendant didn't show up to defend the suit. An ex parte TRO would only issue if the judge was convinced that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm otherwise, and even then a TRO is limited to 14 days max (with one possible extension of another 14 days). I see no reason why TROs would issue at all in the typical case. Instead, the judge would likely issue a preliminary injunction which by definition can only occur after notice and a hearing. Now, if the defendant doesn't show up to the hearing once notified, then that's the defendant's fault and his rights will be adjudicated without him.

The procedures in SOPA are the procedures used in the federal courts already. To say they violate Due Process is silly. No Federal Rule has ever been declared unconstitutional in a Due Process challenge or otherwise.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Why bother quoting all these rules and procedures to be followed? It's already been shown with Dajaz1.com that procedures weren't followed, such as not telling their lawyer anything at all and secretly extending the website blockage.
And about your changed opinion of Operation in Our Sites and SOPA...well good. But that still doesn't account for all the times you railed against us for being against SOPA because of "piracy". If you're now against SOPA, then why do you attack us for being against it?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The forfeiture procedures were followed in the dajaz1.com case. The issue there isn't due process per se, it's the lack of procedural safeguards for First Amendment protected speech (which the forfeiture laws do not address one way or the other).

I still do support Operation in Our Sites and SOPA, so sorry if I gave you a different impression. SOPA is procedurally adequate, and Operation in Our Sites is only problematic with respect to websites that have significant amounts of protected speech on them (which seems to be very few of the sites targeted). Sites that sell fake NFL jerseys and such are rightfully seized and forfeited. Sites with protected speech on them just need to be given a chance to challenge the seizures promptly afterwards. So with a minor tweaking, Operation in Our Sites would be fine in all cases.

What's not fine is websites that exist for the purpose of violating other people's rights. It never ceases to amaze me how much Mike doesn't care about that. He's decided for himself which rights are worth protecting and which ones it's OK to violate. That's a sick and twisted view of things, IMO. It's absolutely disgusting.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Giving powers to content holders to trample the rights of others rather in an attempt to control their rights.

How can you say you support operation in our sites when we know of three different websites that have had their rights violated. Sure some criminals were put to bed (not really they just moved on and set up a new site, no counterfeit merch was seized ect ect)but we know of three that got raped by the system and I would assume there were others who just said fuck it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

If you think that's me being hypocritical, then I don't know what to tell you. I make mistakes, I learn from them, and I admit when I'm wrong. I only care about getting the law right, and my opinion actually changes as new information becomes known. I can't say that much for Mike et al.

You know, AJ, I think this is exactly what makes you hypocritical. You complain about Mike making mistakes, and get all up in his grill about it, and then when someone points out your mistakes you say "I make mistakes." Yet, for the most part (with noted exceptions) you don't actually show where Mike made a mistake, or you state something that Mike didn't actually say or do as proof that he made a mistake. Everyone here makes mistakes, and we all know it, and most of us take the comments by others to heart and change -- but some of us continue to beat up on Mike for past transgressions that may or may not have really happened while we ask for forgiveness from others for our own.

The very definition of hypocritical (hate to bring the Bible into it,) is when you point out the sliver in your brother's eye while ignoring the plank in your own.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

> So your fear is that federal judges will allow SOPA to be
> used to bring China-like censorship to the U.S., where
> websites get taken down not because they're used to
> violate people's rights but because of the messages and
> ideas being voiced on those sites?

Look what happened with Wikileaks. The government did everything it could think of to force that information offline. You don't think that if the government had a SOPA-llike law at its disposal that it wouldn't have used it?

Re: Re: Re:

Again I find it funny that you SOPA supporters like to downplay just how much power this law gives to the government.

You point out the noise ordinance and claim it is the same. Well lets take a look at that. If you go out in your yard you can go on all you want about same-sex marriage. You can even go door to door and tell everyone how great it is. That is your right. When you pull out your amp you can even amplify it to a certain point. Once you past that point you will be told to turn it down or face a fine.

Now if that law was like SOPA then you would step out on your lawn and start talking only to gave guys run up and toss you into the street. Your home will be taken and your bank accounts frozen. You will not have a trial or any warning you will just be left homeless. Of course you are free to go to court and challenge these actions. You will have to prove to the court though that what you were saying was totally legal.

To make it worse, under SOPA it would not even need to be you talking. Someone else could walk up in your yard and start talking only to have the same results of you tossed out of your home. I mean you should have been taking measures to make sure no one spoke illegally on your lawn right?

Re: Re: Re:

As far as all the whining about "censorship" goes, tell me this: How exactly is SOPA censorship? I posted a couple days ago about how there's a broad and a narrow defintion of censorship. Not sure if you saw it.

We all saw, and the example was just as flawed then as it is now.

Basically, my argument is that SOPA is not about censorship in the narrow sense, which is how I think most people use the term. Censorship under this view is when the government regulates the subject matter or the viewpoint being expressed. For example, government regulation of what people say about same-sex marriage would be censorship--the bad kind of censorship that China has...

Let's get one point out right off the bat... this narrow vs broad definition argument you are using is yours alone. This is not a commonly acknowledged distinction, so please do not try to present this as something that everyone knows and that Mike is (insert whatever insult you're slinging today here). Censorship means the government restricting/ceasing speech, and that is THE definition. SOPA is censorship by the actual definition no matter how you'd like to narrow YOUR definition to suit your argument.

Not that we've gotten that point clear, let's address your actual example. You are saying that there is a difference between "broad" and "narrow" censorship. You use the example of a city noise ordinance law as a form of censorship in that it prohibits you from saying that which you would otherwise be able to say unless its decibel level remains within a predetermined threshold. I would disagree with you that this is censorship because it does not restrict what you can say, only how loudly you can say it. You can stand on your soapbox and say all of the positive or negative things about same-sex marriage that you would like, and as long as you don't violate other laws (not pertaining to the content of speech) no one can stop this speech. Censorship is the restraint of speech and city ordinance laws do not retrain what you can say. They may place restraint on how and when you can say it, but not on the content itself. Essentially your example is not accurate to the situation.

To be clear, censorship is a restraint on speech... and to say it simpler, it is the government saying WHAT you can or cannot say. Laws that potentially effect how, when, or where you can say something are not a true restraint on speech as they do not limit the speech themselves. Dajaz1.com is perfect example of actual censorship. The entire site was removed from the internet for a year with restraint on tons of legitimate and protected speech. This is the true face of censorship that we are worried about with SOPA and past events have shown that the government is willing to do it.

I really don't follow your distinction between this "broad" and "narrow" definition of yours, and your soapbox/noise ordinance example certainly does not support this example. Maybe if you would define censorship in general, I'd have better understanding of this distinction. The common definition of censorship put in layman's terms is when the government removes or blocks speech from the public. Your soapbox example doesn't address the restraint of speech. As I stated above, the noise ordinance does not place any restraint on the speech as it is totally agnostic to the content. Simply put, it says that no speech may occur above this decibel level after that hour of the day. Comparing this example to Mike's opinion that SOPA (which does have the ability to retrain speech) is censorship (whether you want to use your "broad" or "narrow" distinction is fallacious and a false comparison. SOPA has the ability to remove speech and that meets any definition of censorship that you can come up with... PERIOD. Abrahams himself admitted that SOPA WILL result in first amendment violations, he just didn't care about those instances (most likely because he was being paid not to care IMHO).

Re: Re: Re:

Quote:

Basically, my argument is that SOPA is not about censorship in the narrow sense, which is how I think most people use the term. Censorship under this view is when the government regulates the subject matter or the viewpoint being expressed. For example, government regulation of what people say about same-sex marriage would be censorship--the bad kind of censorship that China has.

Basically your dishonesty just shows more and more, as was answered to you in that post, copyright is a monopoly which is the root causes of censorship bills that we are seeing, not one bill that censor anything including the pedo ones stayed only for the purposes of what was originally intended once it get there, the government sees a chance to censor more and more and more.

The terrorist bill passed in the past to catch terrorist?
Not used to catch terrorists at all, it is used for everything but terrorists.

The DMCA?
Not used at all to fight copyright infringement but as a tool to harass honest and legal business competitors and censor others.

As for Mike's exaggeration I think not, he even gave the quote or didn't you see it?

He cited the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa) in the United States as an example of the kind of threat facing online freedom. If passed, the act would allow for some sites to be blocked on copyright grounds.

Any one with 2 eyes and a brain can see that the guy in Germany, cited SOPA as a censorship threat to humanity, wrong or right that is what he did and you are saying that he did not?

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Hey we all get dismissed because we are "dirty pirates" / "dependent on piracy" or "The fact is, you don't want anything to be done about piracy. And given that, it's hard to take your criticisms seriously." Then you get dismissed because you are a failed artist. If you don't have to take arguments against your POV seriously we don;t have to take you seriously.

Now get back to sucking at making content instead of pretending to be a law school dropout.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

If this law wasn't aimed at copyright piracy, none of you would be giving this much attention to it. Give me a break. Just look at how obsessed Mike is with the copyright aspect of it. He doesn't care about the trademark infringement.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Mike's "SOPA hating" is NOT just piracy apologism. This is the problem with people like you. You have a very "us and them" mindset, if they're not with us, they're the enemy and it can only be that way. There's no other possibilities or reasons or anything in your mind.

Mike has repeatedly written articles on all the reasons he's against SOPA. From it will be used as a censorship tool (violate free speech) to it will be ineffective (there are already workarounds against it) to it will make the internet less secure (DNS blocking). And so on and so forth. He has NOT once apologized for piracy in any of that. What he has said, more than once, is that this isn't going to work, "here's why..." Then he's gone on to even suggest ideas on how to beat piracy and how to win over customers.

That you ignore all this is just proof of your bias against Mike.

I mean, are you saying that Google, DNS providers, the engineers who invented the internet, etc are ALL piracy apologists? Because that's what your comment would suggest. Anyone who is against SOPA is a pirate or pirate apologist.

You know, average_joe, you're the worst kind of troll on here. You attempt to come off as a reasonable and willing to debate points in a logical and reasonable manner, but first chance you get you say things like that ("Mike is a pirate apologist", "this is Techdirt after all..." etc etc etc). You shoot yourself in the foot and make people not want to take you even remotely seriously. Then you go off on tangents.

A week later and you're still going on about "narrow" and "broad" censorship. Censorship is censorship. Narrow, broad, doesn't matter. And you're "noise ordinance" example way up above was terrible. It shows you speak at times without thinking, in your example you failed to see that you can still say whatever you please. Just not as loud as you please. No one is censoring you.

I say, just give it a rest for the day. If this is just Techdirt though and Mike is nothing but a pirate apologists and the rest of us are all freetards or whatever you think we are, maybe you should move on from this site completely. Take a page from Blue and some of the other ACs books'. There ARE sites where you can b*tch and hate about people like us to your hearts content with other like minded people. Why not go visit such a site and make it your new home? Just a thought.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Of course there are people who dislike SOPA for reasons not having to do with piracy. I don't believe for one second that Mike is one of those people. Mike is one of the biggest piracy apologists on the planet. It's weird you don't see that since you seem like a smart person.

And how does my noise ordinance example show I speak without thinking? That's an example of a government regulation of speech that Mike would call censorship, but I don't think most people would agree. I thought the example made the point well. Sorry you disagree. How should I properly have made that point?

And, sorry, I'll exercise my right to speak freely on Techdirt if I please. (What, are you trying to censor me?) I can tell that you don't like it when people say things you disagree with. Sorry, but that's your problem. If you disagree with me, then explain your reasons and have a debate. Telling me to leave is a silly way to deal with opinions that are contra to your own.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Mike is NOT a piracy apologist. I'm too lazy to go look up and copy/paste all the quotes he's made to the contrary. He advocates for change, he points out stupidity, etc. None of that makes him an apologist. If anything, it makes him a realist. He sees the issue at hand, he acknowledges it, he presents ways to deal with it. That you don't approve of them, that the studios/labels don't either, etc is evident. And because he's not saying what you want him to say, you label him an apologist (at the very least).

Your noise ordinance example was you speaking and trying to compare it to censorship. Censorship being when your right to speak is effectively blocked. Noise ordinance is not censorship, you can still speak. But you can't scream it out loud. Or what have you. Thus you spoke without thinking through the example fully. It wasn't comparable in the least. Which is why I pointed out it was a bad example and you didn't think it through. You tried to conflate noise ordinance laws with censorship when they're anything but.

I'm not trying to censor you. (I was so waiting for you to say that, a nice fallback position for those on your side of the debate.) I was merely pointing out that you seem to not want to have any kind of real debate. You try and come off as reasonable, as I said earlier. But the moment you get the chance it's "you guys just want to steal", "Mike is wrong and a piracy apologist", etc. You can't do both. You can be reasonable and speak using logic and all that jazz. Or you can act like a troll, insult others, avoid the actual discussion at hand, etc.

You seem to do both. Going back and forth as you see fit.

I don't have a problem with anyone saying something I don't like, in fact most of my best friends I disagree with on a variety of important issues. We get along and discuss things just fine. However, if we can't have a discussion without at least meeting halfway and resorting to name calling, we prefer to part ways or just avoid one another for a bit. That's what I'm suggesting. If Mike is always wrong and being an apologist (per your beliefs) and the people here are all thieves and whatnot, perhaps your time and words would be better off spent and spoken elsewhere.

I don't need to explain my reasons or debate you, I've done so twice now. You come off one way, act another at times, etc. There's no point debating with someone who'll come up with "well, you're a piracy apologist, but what did I expect speaking to someone here at Techdirt" first chance they get. That is what you do. And that is a problem.

You can stay, I have no problem with that. I encourage it, but only if you plan on actually having a discussion reasonably and without the "oh Mike this" or "Techdirt, what did I expect that". It shows you aren't ready to behave in an adult like manner and be respectful. You say I need to explain my reasons and whatnot, yet you slam Mike repeatedly every chance you get. Mike explains himself and his views. In fact, he joins in on the comments and does so when called out by people. That you ignore his own words just to call him a "piracy apologist" says a lot about you. It says you aren't willing to listen to what people have to say and prefer to make assumptions about them and use your own biased points of views to judge and slam them.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

and I would pay attention to anything that causes so much damage and walks all over the common mans rights. Just like I am all in a tizzy about the NDAA even though it has nothing to do with your precious copyrights.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Not ONLY a failed artist, also a failed human being.
One of the many nature's failure to achieve perfection.

See I'm dehumanizing you right now. That is bad. I don't want people to see you like a chicken for acting like a chicken little, people don't care about chickens and what happens to them, people will start abusing you and they will feel that nothing wrong is happening, just like you are trying to dehumanized "pirates" and trying to make them look bad so people stop seeing them as human beings that deserve respect and consideration.

you try to use the word "piracy" as something bad, when piracy can be a number of things like making a backup, lending music, movies or books to someone else, xeroxing a book to study, using something to create another thing, being able to earn a living on the streets, you apparently just ignore all those other things and just want people to see bad things about it and they are not buying your vision of it, have you ever wondered why?

Maybe because your own efforts made you look like a chicken in the public eyes, you are not human anymore, you are a failed human being.

Re: Re:

Or have we again reached the theory (which you continue to dance around but never openly advocate because you know it's unjustifiable) the US is just going to impose its laws on the entire world?

You're so obsessed with this notion. This must be the tenth time you've brought it up with me. You're really boring with this line of argument. And for the record, no, I do not think that U.S. law applies outside of the U.S. How could it even I wanted it to? As far as what law applies in space, I have no idea. Never thought about it and don't care. Not interesting enough to research.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

>You're so obsessed with this notion.

No more than you're obsessed with avoiding it. You make a statement like, "The government won't allow such satellites..." yet you completely ignore the very real fact that not all satellites are launched from US soil, belong to US citizens/companies, or fall under US jurisdiction.

Other than the US assuming some kind of heretofore unheard of (and necessarily one-sided), legally unjustifiable extra-territorial jurisdiction over near-earth orbit in its entirety, how is do you suppose the government will prevent such things, as you vaguely suggested in your original comment?

Re:

"Guess some rights are worth more than others, right? "

YES! Finally, you get it! Copyright is a government-granted right that should only exist if is to the public's benefit as originally intended. As far as rights go it already ranks fairly low on the scale. Public opinion of copyright is at an all-time low thanks to the ridiculous state of copyright laws today, whereas other more fundamental rights are far more treasured and respected, so it's entirely correct that "some rights are worth more than others."

Re: Re:

LOL! It's scary that you think that. Unlike you, I think everyone's rights are important and worth protecting. If you don't think people should have copyright rights, then work to change the law. Unless and until the law changes, though, people do have those rights and they should be respected.

It's scary how guys like you and Mike think you get to decide which rights are worth protecting and which rights it's OK to violate.

Re: Re: Re:

Basic common sense tells us that granted rights are not as important as basic human rights. My rights to speech etcetera are not granted. They are guaranteed. Privileges such as copyright are granted by law, and as such are not as important.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Your right to free speech exists because of the First Amendment, so I don't really follow you.

The fact is, the law takes into consideration the fact that First Amendment free speech rights exist, and this is why laws are subject to First Amendment scrutiny. An otherwise valid law can be struck down on First Amendment grounds.

What the law doesn't do is pretend like some rights are OK to violate. It's never OK to violate someone's rights, no matter what the source of those rights is. So it makes no sense, legally speaking, to pretend like some rights can be violated. It doesn't work that way.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You're right. Maybe we should look at the rights assigned by copyright and decide if they are worthwhile to society as a whole. Oh wait the procopyright side is deeply entrenched industries with billions of dollars in lobbying budgets and the anti side is just the public. Nevermind then.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Your right to free speech exists because of the First Amendment, so I don't really follow you."

Methinks you should read the Declaration of Independance again. What's that? They don't use it at your law school? Hmmm.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Well, that is what everybody is doing, we all are working to show people what a granted monopoly is doing to them and for the most part everybody agrees that it is bad, except for the rulers at the moment that will be replaced eventually.

Re:

Re: Re:

Honestly, it's actually much more simple than that. They already have the Tor network, so a framework has been built. Simply redesign the system in such a way that security is even greater. My first suggestion would be looking at the IPSec features of IPv6 already in place, and then building a custom worldwide P2P based of linklocal/Bogon IP Space with DHCPv6 or RAs supplying easy to use routing for end users. The main hurdles will be rogue operators that will try and destroy the system.

Censorship sucks

What gives someone the right to tell you what you can and cant read? We are all human, each human is equal in the eyes of life. There is a site that is becomming rather popular with the increasing censorship, I think you should take a look.

The lads over there have been fighting the war for a long time. I suggest checking out Cory Doctorw's speech, regarding the coming war on general computing. He makes some great arguments for what the next 100 years are going to look like as the REALLY big entrenched interests get into the Content Industry hotseat.

The day Monsanto realizes that gene mod organisms can be printed out with a usb powered fabber should be an interesting one.

Internet Destroyer

Guys, I know everyone is excited about a new internet with high speed laser satellites beeming down SOPA circumvention so we won't have to worry about censorship. But just as we mention that SOPA won't stop infringement (Piracy if your Hollywood). A new way of distributing the internet won't help either. SOPA goes after the life line of the website. It kills the money from the source. A new way to get internet won't stop the websites from dying out. SOPA is just bad. As for Average_Joe's comment about how this is not actually censorship. Take a moment and think about this. All of us are having a wonderfully heated debate about the joys of SOPA. And I post a link to the NY Times website (FYI: This website was filtered/censored from Air Force computers after Wikileaks cables). Someone joins the conversation later on and says. OMFG a link to a bad website. Techdirt should know that the Department of Defense considers this bad, they are allowing people to view rogue websites that spread government secrets, which is the US governments intellectual property. 1st Send notice to all payment centers to terminate Techdirts money, 2nd Send notice via snail mail to Techdirt saying Ha Ha, Shame on you Techdirt, for linking to rogue websites that steals intellectual property for your gains. And now Techdirt is gone for at least a year or much more. And even if it comes back it won't be the same. Not just our comments are gone. But everyone who puts forth the effort to voice their opinions. And bring forth knowledge and clarity about LA Red Light camera fines are now voluntary. Shoot, we wouldn't even have this joyful conversation right now because somewhere, somebuddy would get upset and purposefully upload infringing material. Just to set a company up to die. Unless your the RIAA who loves the tv show DEXTER and can brush off anyone thinking of sueing.

Re: Internet Destroyer

You should realize that cutting off the money won't stop the Internet. We had multiple, quite effective ways of exchanging information well before the web and well before the advertisers moved in. They'll still work -- in fact, they are still working.

So while cutting off the money would strangle any number of entities that rely on it, it won't destroy the Internet. All it will do is cause a momentary ripple, followed by a thousand new initiatives -- all of which will far more resistant to interference by governments and corporations.

It's at this point that you should be reaching for a copy of "The Shockwave Rider" by John Brunner and reading it very carefully.

Re: Re: Internet Destroyer

Well that is reassuring. But one of the many reasons people invest in websites and online business is to make money in order to provide for their families or joys. Though not the only reason. It is a big reason for a lot of poeple. So though the internet will still work, I fear that a bunch of websites and programs that have been made or about to be made will be gone. I personally like the idea of using 2 Red Solo cups and a really long string for communication.

well, BitTorrent was just the test case, as in version 1
BitTorrent already have a decentralize network aka DHT, so it shouldn't be that hard to make a internet that can go around any so-called-censorship

Why Satellites?

Amateur radio has been passing data packets for years. Why not build mesh networks with terrestrial radio? If it works well for the revolutionaries and drug cartels in the South American bush it should work fine for everyone else.